455 P.3d 277
Cal.2019Background
- California's Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (CANRA) requires "mandated reporters" (including psychotherapists) to report suspected child abuse; in 2014 Assembly Bill 1775 amended the definition of "sexual exploitation" to add downloading, streaming, or accessing child pornography via electronic/digital media.
- Plaintiffs are licensed therapists and a counselor who treat sexual disorders; they allege many patients have admitted, in voluntary psychotherapy, to downloading or viewing child pornography but—per therapists’ professional judgment—pose no serious risk of hands‑on abuse.
- Plaintiffs sued, claiming the 2014 amendment forces therapists to report those admissions and thereby violates patients’ privacy under the California Constitution (art. I, § 1) and the Fourteenth Amendment; defendants demurred.
- Trial court sustained the demurrers and dismissed; the Court of Appeal affirmed; the California Supreme Court granted review, reversed the Court of Appeal, and remanded for factual development.
- The Supreme Court limited the challenge to mandatory reporting of simple possession/viewing disclosed in psychotherapy (not hands‑on abuse, not minors’ consensual sexting), recognized the psychotherapist‑patient privilege and its exceptions (including dangerous‑patient), and held the state‑law privacy claim survives demurrer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs alleged a legally protected privacy interest | Therapy disclosures are protected by the psychotherapist‑patient privilege and state constitutional privacy | No cognizable privacy in admissions of illegal conduct; reporting obligations and history limit privacy | The Court: plaintiffs adequately alleged a protected privacy interest in psychotherapy communications; survives demurrer |
| Whether patients have a reasonable expectation of privacy in psychotherapy admissions of possessing/viewing child pornography | Patients reasonably expect confidentiality when seeking voluntary treatment for sexual disorders | Longstanding reporting laws and legislative history eliminate a reasonable expectation | The Court: on the pleading, plaintiffs alleged a reasonable expectation; factual record may alter that finding on remand |
| Whether mandatory reporting is a serious invasion of privacy and, if so, whether it is justified | Reporting is a severe invasion that may deter treatment and therefore may not advance CANRA’s child‑protection purpose | Reporting furthers the compelling state interest in protecting children and reducing exploitation | The Court: reporting is a serious invasion; but whether it substantively furthers the statute’s purpose is a factual question for remand; Court did not decide the applicable standard (compelling v. balancing) |
| Proper scope of challenge (facial vs as‑applied) and remedy | Challenge targets application to therapists treating non‑dangerous patients; seeks relief beyond plaintiffs’ particular cases | Statute is valid in many applications; facial challenge is unlikely to succeed | The Court: claim has both facial and as‑applied aspects; facial‑challenge standards apply to the broader reach and plaintiffs must ultimately prove lack of justification with evidence on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 7 Cal.4th 1 (1994) (framework for state constitutional privacy claims: protected interest, reasonable expectation, serious invasion, and justification)
- People v. Stritzinger, 34 Cal.3d 505 (1983) (psychotherapist‑patient privilege and narrow construction of child‑abuse exception)
- Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) (recognition of psychotherapist privilege in federal context)
- People v. Gonzales, 56 Cal.4th 353 (2013) (discusses scope of psychotherapist‑patient privilege)
- In re Grant, 58 Cal.4th 469 (2014) (describing harms from child pornography and consumers’ culpability)
- Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (2014) (discussing the scale of online distribution of child pornography)
- American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, 16 Cal.4th 307 (1997) (state privacy analysis and limits of relying on statutory practice to defeat privacy expectations)
- Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977) (consideration of customs/practices in evaluating privacy expectations)
- Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425 (1976) (duty to protect when therapist reasonably believes patient is dangerous)
- In re Lifschutz, 2 Cal.3d 415 (1970) (importance of confidentiality to psychotherapy)